In December 1804, an Anglo-Swedish agreement led to the creation of the Third Coalition against France.By April 1805, Britain and Russia had signed a treaty of alliance. Austria joined the coalition a few months later.On December 2, 1805 the French army defeated the Russo-Austrian army at Austerlitz near Brno in Moravia.At about 9:00 a.m. Napoleon ordered the attack, adding "one sharp blow and the war is over".The Battle of the Three Emperors, Napoleon's greatest victory, destroyed the Third Coalition.

This map is intended to be smaller than Waterloo.The layout is based on the order of battle at the division level.

SUGGESTED / TO DO

DONE- adding three villages in order to have 32 starting positions- +2 bonus for the three villages- victory conditions hold central battlefield- making graphically the wings more obvious- adding prince Von Lichtenstein- villages icons- clearer attack route- pratzen in victory conditions- colour dots in legend- code both of the 3-region bonus zones (villages and french left flank) as start positions

REJECTED- going to a ~60 territories map, this one is based on the division level and brigade would be 120, way too much!... beside I like the chess game level as it is now, 60 or even 120 is like a big apocalyptic mess I don't want for this map- adding artillery battery, the map is too small and cavalry is already some long range effect on such a condensed map- adding a small map situating the battle in the campaign, it would be too small- rotate the entire map 90 degrees clockwise

Last edited by pamoa on Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:20 am, edited 45 times in total.

Good start pamoa... i was looking at this battle some months ago but decided to leave it go for a while....glad to see someone (U) have taken it up. Also glad to see it keeps some line with Waterloo -> cavalary attack range is two.

cairnswk wrote:Good start pamoa... i was looking at this battle some months ago but decided to leave it go for a while....glad to see someone (U) have taken it up. Also glad to see it keeps some line with Waterloo -> cavalry attack range is two.

Well, this would be an historical problem as I followed the actual order of battle at the "division" level. If I go down to the "brigade" level I would end up with 123 territories which clearly not what I wanted for this map. But if you have some suggestion please tell me, I used this link to define the order of battle.

Lone.prophet wrote:looking good, but to get ineterest maybe make clear where in the world this is.

I can work on that !

mibi wrote:I am not really feeling it.It's too complex to be able to dive into, and too small for the complexity lovers to enjoy.

Does that mean you think it would be better to be like Waterloo with 123 territories as Emperor_Metalman suggested ?

I think if you are going to go the complex route, it would be best to go all out and let this be a niche map like Waterloo, though 123 territories might be a bit much graphically. I think you could work wit battle without being so strict on your self in terms of territory count. Be creative, do research.

If I've counted correctly, there are 30 territories? I think you could add a couple more, but only enough to make 1st-round eliminations less likely in 7/8 player games.

If you were reluctant to add any more army units, you could consider adding civilian villages or something where you've got the buildings on the map in the background? You could add in a bonus for holding a certain number of villages?

Click image to enlarge.

Waterloo is fairly intimidating to me, in part due to its large size. I'm inclined to think that a smaller map like this would be a good intermediary for people like me?

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

I'm now fairly sure about the fact I want this map to remain "small" (not Waterloo like). I'm not against adding some troops as for the coalition I had to make an interpretation of the order of battle. In reality even for them the hierarchical structure wasn't so clear. It is said it was one of the defeat factor. So I can easily add 1 or 2 "divisions" splitting some column differently.

MrBenn, what would be an more optimal numbers of "divisions" saying I now have 29 + 2 emperors starting neutral ?

Last edited by pamoa on Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

I personally consider 32 starting territories the bare minimum, as this ensures that every player in every game starts with at least 4 territories. If you've got 29 starting currently, then I'd suggest adding 3 more

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

Thanks for your point of view ZeakCytho, but as I told before I'm trying to stick to some "real" order of battle so my choice is between around 30 territories or 120. But 120 is a bit over the top, so I'll stay around 30.I will follow MrBenn suggestion by adding the 3 villages where they were heavy fighting: Pratzen (centre) Skolnitz and Telnitz (south). So their will be 32 starting position + 2 neutrals.

Emperor_Metalman wrote:adding villages to the map is a good idea, but there should be an autodeploy bonus for each village. Also, there should be artillery that can bombard like in the waterloo map.

Villages cannot have an autodeploy bonus each because they are starting position but a +2 bonus for holding them can be done.In this 32+2 territories version artillery is too much. It's a feature I will add only if a vast majority of voters says a very large map is to be done for this map.

Well it seems that everybody who voted, except me, think it should be a VLM (very large map). If so, it would be a completely different map and I may need time to make a decent proposal for such a monster!

pamoa wrote:Well it seems that everybody who voted, except me, think it should be a VLM (very large map). If so, it would be a completely different map and I may need time to make a decent proposal for such a monster!

Well your choices were for 30 or 120 territories.... Perhpas if you had a more comprehensive poll, you'd get a better reflection of opinion??

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

pamoa wrote:Thanks for your point of view ZeakCytho, but as I told before I'm trying to stick to some "real" order of battle so my choice is between around 30 territories or 120. But 120 is a bit over the top, so I'll stay around 30.I will follow MrBenn suggestion by adding the 3 villages where they were heavy fighting: Pratzen (centre) Skolnitz and Telnitz (south). So their will be 32 starting position + 2 neutrals.

At Austerlitz the order of battle wasn't constant as you had numerous divisions moving especially on the coalition side as they tried to overwhelm the right flank, and then of course you had Napoleon's charge down the center of the coalition which broke all the ranks, so perhaps if you chose a point in the middle of the battle for example as napoleon is beginning to make his famous charge you could increase the number of territories. Just a thought

TheShiningSun wrote:At Austerlitz the order of battle wasn't constant as you had numerous divisions moving especially on the coalition side as they tried to overwhelm the right flank, and then of course you had Napoleon's charge down the centre of the coalition which broke all the ranks, so perhaps if you chose a point in the middle of the battle for example as Napoleon is beginning to make his famous charge you could increase the number of territories. Just a thought

3 /16 - Should it stay at the "division" level like it is: about 30 territories12/16 - Or go down at the "brigade" level: about 120 territories 1 /16 - If you think it should be something else, please make an argued proposition

! This map will be on stand by until I'm able to work on a 120 territories version !